Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 – Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 – ss. 2, 3(a), 4, 5 & 7 – Validity of 2021 Act – Backward Class Reservation – Reservation of seats in educational institutions – Reservation in appointments or posts in the services under the state – Classification of Backward Classes – An Act (2021 Act) for special reservation within 20% reserved Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and De-notified Communities (DNCs) was passed by State assembly – The bill provides reservation of seats in private educational institutions, and reservation in appointment or posts in the services under the State – 10.5% reservation was specifically earmarked for the Vanniyakula Kshatriya community – Writ petitions were filed in the High Court assailing the constitutional validity of 2021 Act – The High Court held that the State Legislature had no competence to enact the 2021 Act and there was no quantifiable data – The High Court further found that the internal reservation made only on the basis of caste is violative of Constitution – On appeal, held: There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act – State Government has the competence to classify the Vanniakula Kshatriyas or any other community or group of communities within backward classes as a particular class for the grant of special measures, there should be a reasonable basis for categorising such communities into a different section from the rest of the communities within the MBCs and DNCs, on grounds which cannot be superficial or illusory – By taking into account the population of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas as enumerated in the ORS.
report of the Ambasankar Commission in 1985, the Chairman recommended internal reservation, i.e., 10.5 per cent – Any study by the Commission should be with regard to the present status since the object is to take affirmative actions in present or in future to address the needs of a particular community – There was no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16.
Constitution of India – Art. 341 – 102nd Amendment Act – Sub Categorisation of Classes – What the 102nd Amendment prohibits the State from undertaking is identifying a caste as SEBC or including or excluding a community from the list notified by the President – A close scrutiny of E.V. Chinnaiah would make it clear that the High Court was wrong in relying upon the said judgment to hold that sub classification of backward classes is beyond the legislative competence of the State – A Presidential list for SEBCs did not come into existence and the question of sub-division of the said list by way of the 2021 Act does not arise. Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 — Article 31-B - It is settled law that any amendment made to a statute placed under the Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule— Thus, Article 31-B does not operate as a hurdle for the State to enact statutes on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act – It is made clear that it was open to the State to have amended the 1994 Act – At the same time, it cannot be said that the State Legislature lacked competence to enact a legislation for determining the extent of reservation amongst the MBCs and DNCs.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
Held: 1.1 Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. This brings in the question of classification. As there is no infringement of the equal protection rule, if the law deals alike with all of a certain class, the legislature has the undoubted right of classifying persons and placing those whose conditions are substantially similar under the same rule of law, while applying different rules to persons differently situated. The classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It must rest always upon real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the thing in respect to which the classification is made; and classification made without any reasonable basis should be regarded as invalid. The whole doctrine of classification is based on discrimination without reason and discrimination with reason and on the well-known fact that the circumstances which govern one set of persons or objects may not necessarily be the same as those governing another set of persons or objects so that the question of unequal treatment does not really arise as between persons governed by different conditions and different sets of circumstances. [Para 71][93-E-G; 94-A-B]
1.2 Discrimination is the essence of classification. Equality is violated if it rests on unreasonable basis. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is, therefore, to be founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Our Constitution aims at equality of status and opportunity for all citizens including those who are socially, economically and educationally backward. Articles15(4) and 16(4) bring out the position of backward classes to merit equality. Special provisions are made for the advancement of backward classes and reservation of appointments and posts for them to secure adequate representation. These provisions are intended to bring out the content of equality guaranteed by Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1). However, it is to be noted that equality under Articles 15 and 16 could not have a different content from equality under Article 14. Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational ORS.
relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial.[Para 72][94-B-F]
1.3 The object of the 2021 Act is to achieve equitable distribution of the benefit of 20 per cent reservation provided to MBCs and DNCs. At the cost of repetition, at the time of enactment of the 2021 Act, 116 castes were to be found in the cumulative lists of MBCs and DNCs. Choosing a particular caste and providing a special reservation of 10.5 per cent out of the 20 per cent to such caste is discriminatory, in the absence of any sound differentiation from communities who are similarly situated and were, therefore, grouped together for the purposes of receiving the benefits of 20 per cent reservation. While the State Government has the competence to classify the Vanniakula Kshatriyas or any other community or group of communities within backward classes as a particular class for the grant of special measures, there should be a reasonable basis for categorising such communities into a different section from the rest of the communities within the MBCs and DNCs, on grounds which cannot be superficial or illusory. [Para 73][94-F-G; 95-A-B] The justification on behalf of the State is that sufficient material was gathered by the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission to show that there was inadequate representation, disproportionate to the population of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas, thereby culminating in the 2021 Act, which aimed to achieve equitable distribution of reservation amongst MBCs and DNCs. A perusal of the discussion in the earlier paragraphs would disclose that the letter from the Chairman, Backward Classes Commission is on the basis of antiquated data, without any assessment of the relative backwardness and representation of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas and their ability to compete with the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs. Additionally, recommendations therein are solely based on population. To differentiate a particular class / category from others, there should be a substantial distinction which clearly demarcates that class / category. In the instant case, we see no justification for how the Vanniakula Kshatriyas can be treated asa different class and meted out preferential treatment, being one amongst the 116 communities, who have all been considered on the same footing till the enactment of the 2021 Act and were, therefore, eligible to claim the benefit of undivided 20 per cent reservation. Population being cited as the sole factor to support this classification is in the teeth of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Jarnail Singh. Accordingly, this court holds that the classification sought to be made under the 2021 Act is unreasonable and, therefore, the 2021 Act is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16, as there is no substantial basis for differentiating the Vanniakula Kshatriyas and granting them separate reservation. [Para 74][95-B-G]
2. There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act. The 105th Amendment Act being prospective in operation, it is the 102nd Amendment Act which held the field at the time of enactment of the 2021 Act. As the 2021 Act dealt with sub-classification and apportionment of certain percentage of reservation for the purpose of determining the extent of reservation of communities within the MBCs and DNCs, it is a permissible exercise of power by the State Government under Article 342-A of the Constitution in terms of the judgment of this Court in Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil. Prior to the 105th Amendment Act, what was prohibited for the State to carry out under Article 342-A is the identification of SEBCs, by inclusion or exclusion of communities in the Presidential list of SEBCs. It is clear that the exercise of identification of MBCs and DNCs had been completed by the State pursuant to the 1994 Act. There is no bar to the sub-classification amongst backward classes, which has been expressly approved in Indra Sawhney. Even considering the judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah, which dealt with the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes identified in the Presidential list under Article 341 and held that any sub-division of Scheduled Castes by the State would amount to tinkering with the Presidential list, the State’s competence in the present case to enact the 2021 Act is not taken away on this ground as, admittedly, the Presidential list of SEBCs is yet to be published, making the question of tinkering with such list redundant. Placing of the 1994 Act under the Ninth Schedule cannot operate as a hurdle for the State to enact legislations on matters ancillary to ORS.
the 1994 Act. Legislative competence of the State Legislature can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and Article 31-B does not stipulate any such express prohibition on the legislative powers of the State. Detailing the extent of reservation for communities already identified as MBCs and DNCs, which is the thrust of the 2021 Act, cannot be said to be in conflict with the 1994 Act, as determination of extent of reservation for various communities was not the subject matter of the 1994 Act. The 1994 Act, having received the assent of the President under Article 31-C, does not prohibit the State Legislature from enacting a legislation with the approval of the Governor on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act, as Article 31-C does not place any fetter on the legislative powers of the State. The State cannot be compelled to seek the assent of the President for a legislation granting internal reservation, when it is empowered to provide reservation and other special measures for backward classes, by way of legislation as well as executive orders, under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. On the issue of caste- based classification, Indra Sawhney has, in precise and unambiguous terms, stated that caste can be the starting point for identifying backward classes, but it cannot be the sole basis. Accordingly, while caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. As regards the letter of Justice Thanikachalam, Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, which forms the basis of the 2021 Act, it is found that the Government has committed an error in accepting the recommendations. Finally, on the 2021 Act, there is no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16. This Court upholds the judgment of the High Court on this aspect. Given our conclusion on the 2021 Act being ultra vires Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, this Court has refrained from delving into the issue of non-compliance by the State Government with the consultation requirement prescribed under clause (9) of Article 338-B at the time of enactment of the 2021 Act. [Para 77][96-G-H; 97-A-H; 98-A-H; 99-A-D]
Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021) 8 SCC 1; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) 3 Supp SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Supp SCR 454; E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 394 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 972; Maharaj Umeg Singh v. State of Bombay 1955 AIR 540 : [1955] 2 SCR 164; - followed.
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396; Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2020) 2 SCC 595 : [2019] 16 SCR 886; - relied on.
State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan 1951 AIR 226 : [1951] SCR 525; S.V. Joshi v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 41; M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC
1 : [2008] 4 SCR 1; Abdul Rahim Ismail C. Rahimtoola v. State of Bombay 1959 AIR 1315 : [1960] 1 SCR 285; Ebrahim Vazir Mavat v. State of Bombay (1954) AIR 229 : [1954] SCR 933; The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. B. Kamble (1975) 1 SCC 696 : [1975] 3 SCR 885; Shri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay (1959) AIR 459 : [1959] 1 Supp SCR 489; Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) AIR 845 : [1965] 1 SCR 933; Ramanlal Gulab Chand Shah v. State of Gujarat (1969) AIR 168 : [1969] 1 SCR 42; State of Orissa v. Chandrasekhar Singh Bhoi (1969) 2 SCC 334 : [1970]
1 SCR 593; State of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Damodar Patil (1968 ) AIR 1395 : [1968] 3 SCR 712; K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 405; Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality (1969) 2 SCC 283 : [1970] 1 SCR 358; Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 509 : [1970] 3 SCR 745; Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm Inc. 514 U.S. 211 (1995); Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. (1954) AIR 728 : (1955) 1 SCR 707; M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of A.P. (1958) AIR 468 : [1958] 0 SCR 1422; Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) AIR ORS.
648 : [1959] 2 Supp SCR 8; Patel Gordhandas
Hargovindas v. Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad 1963 AIR 1742 : [1964] 2 SCR 608; State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 1; K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1988) 4 SCC 590; UCO Bank v. Dipak Debbarma (2017) 2 SCC 585 : [2016] 11 SCR 723; Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra 1966 AIR 1788 : [1966] 3 SCR 885; Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand (2011) 8 SCC 708 : [2011] 9 SCR 1012; State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (2009) 8 SCC 46 : [2009] 11 SCR 142; Dattatray Yedu Thombre v. State of Maharashtra (2019) SCC Online Bom 4408; Citizens of Deulgaon Raja v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 4 Bom CR 223 : (2002) SCC Online Bom 735; Rasal Singh v. State of M.P. (1978) SCC Online MP 12; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (1967) AIR 295 : [1966] Supp SCR 311; State of A.P. v. U.S.V. Balram (1972) 1 SCC 660 : [1972]
3 SCR 247; Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC
497 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 357; V. Narayana Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 1987 AP 53 : (1986) 2 Andh LT 258; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India (1951) AIR
41 : [1950] SCR 869; Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1994) 4 SCC 401; Col. A.S. Iyer v. V. Balasubramanyam (1980) 1 SCC 634 : [1980] 1 SCR 1036; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) AIR 75 : [1952] SCR 284; Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra (1952) AIR 123 : [1952] SCR 435; State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310 : [1976] 1 SCR 906; Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (2014) 8 SCC 682 : [2014] 6 SCR 873; M.P. Cement Manufacturers’ Association v. State of M. P. (2004) 2 SCC 249 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 557- referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.